![]() | This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations .(November 2023) |
Garland v. Cargill | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued February 28, 2024 Decided June 14, 2024 | |
Full case name | Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. v. Michael Cargill |
Docket no. | 22-976 |
Case history | |
Prior |
|
Questions presented | |
Whether a bump stock device is a "machinegun" as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires "automatically more than one shot...by a single function of the trigger." | |
Holding | |
The ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a “machinegun” under §5845(b). Pp. 6–19. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett |
Concurrence | Alito |
Dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson |
Garland v. Cargill, (Docket No. 22-976), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding bump stocks. [1] [2] The court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its authority by classifying bump stocks as "machine guns" as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code. [3]
Machine guns are regulated in the United States under the National Firearms Act of 1934. [4] The Act provides, as codified in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code, the following definition:
"The term 'machinegun' means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person."
A bump stock is a gun stock designed to facilitate the process of bump firing. Bump firing is the practice of using the recoil of a semiautomatic firearm to mimic fully automatic fire. In the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting, a gunman using semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks fired hundreds of rounds into a crowd, killing 58 and wounding over 500. In response, the ATF quickly proposed a new rule [5] to repudiate its previous stance and "clarify" that bump stocks did transform weapons into machine guns. Ever since, the legality of these attachments had been challenged at the state and federal level. In 2018, by then after Parkland High School shooting, the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) published a Final Rule in the Federal Register stating that bump stocks device were a "machine guns" and thus illegal other than for or under authority of government agencies, with owners of bump stocks either having to destroy or surrender them to the ATF to avoid criminal prosecution. [6]
Respondent Michael Cargill, owner of Central Texas Gun Works [7] purchased two bump stocks in April 2018, a few months before the ATF published its new rule. On March 25, 2019, Cargill surrendered his bump stocks to the ATF under protest [6] . The same day, he filed suit in the Western District of Texas challenging the rule. Following a bench trial, the judge ruled in favor of the government. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment. Following additional briefing and argument, the en banc court reversed and remanded. On remand, the District Court entered judgment for Cargill. [8] The Biden administration subsequently asked the Supreme Court to appeal this decision. [9]
On April 6, 2023, the Attorney General petitioned the court for a writ of certiorari. The court granted the petition on November 3. Oral arguments were heard on February 28, 2024. [10] On June 14, 2024, the Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Cargill, ruling that the ATF exceeded its authority in defining bump stocks as machine guns. [3]
The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, stated that under the relevant federal law,, bump stock attachments did not qualify as machine guns. The Thomas opinion was joined by the Chief Justice, John Roberts, and by Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Associate Justice Alito wrote, in addition, a separate concurring opinion. [3] Associate Justice Thomas stated in his opinion that while a bump stock can increase the rate of fire for a semi-automatic firearm to that approaching a machinegun, there exist distinctions (summarized below) between a traditional machinegun and the semi-automatic firearm which is equipped with a bump stock. [6]
For these reasons, Justice Thomas concluded that a bump stock functions neither "automatically" nor does a bump stock "shoot...more than one shot...per single function of the trigger". Hence, the bump stock would not be a machinegun under the NFA as it is currently written. [11] Additionally, Justice Thomas criticized the dissenting opinion for the case and characterized it as betraying the law's text for reasons of convenience:
"The presumption against ineffectiveness cannot do the work that ATF and the dissent ask of it. A law is not useless merely because it draws a line more narrowly than one of its conceivable statutory purposes might suggest."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent, which was joined by Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench, arguing that firearms equipped with bump stocks should be considered as machine guns because not doing so would make the National Firearms Act less effective: "This court has repeatedly avoided interpretations of a statute that would facilitate its ready 'evasion'...”. [6]
In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made more certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".
United States v. Stewart, 348 F.3d 1132 and 451 F.3d 1071, is a Ninth Circuit case involving a challenge to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found against the defendant, ruling that possession of homemade machine guns can be constitutionally regulated by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause.
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. The procedures of the Court are governed by the U.S. Constitution, various federal statutes, and its own internal rules. Since 1869, the Court has consisted of one chief justice and eight associate justices. Justices are nominated by the president, and with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the U.S. Senate, appointed to the Court by the president. Once appointed, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office.
Bump stocks or bump fire stocks are gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing, the act of using the recoil of a semi-automatic firearm to fire cartridges in rapid succession.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2006 term, which began October 2, 2006 and concluded September 30, 2007.
Short-barreled rifle broadly refers to any rifle with an unusually short barrel. The term carbine describes a production rifle with a reduced barrel length for easier handling in confined spaces. Concern about concealment for illegal purposes has encouraged regulations specifying minimum barrel lengths and overall lengths.
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2001 term, which began October 1, 2001, and concluded October 6, 2002.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down fourteen per curiam opinions during its 2011 term, which began October 3, 2011 and concluded September 30, 2012.
Peruta v. San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" before issuing a concealed carry permit.
Assault weapons legislation in the United States refers to bills and laws that define and restrict or make illegal the manufacture, transfer, and possession of assault weapons. How these firearms are defined and regulated varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; generally, this constitutes a list of specific firearms and combinations of features on semiautomatic firearms.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eighteen per curiam opinions during its 2015 term, which began October 5, 2015 and concluded October 2, 2016.
V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. 404 (2016), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the adoption rights of same-sex couples. In 2007, a Georgia Superior Court granted adoption rights to V.L., the partner of E.L., the woman who gave birth to their three children. However, after moving back to Alabama, the couple split up. E.L. tried to block V.L. from seeing the children, but V.L. filed a lawsuit seeking visitation and other parental rights. On September 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that the state did not have to recognize the adoption judgment, saying that the Georgia court misapplied its own state law. The court voided the recognition of the adoption judgment in Alabama. V.L. petitioned the United States Supreme Court to stay the ruling during her appeal and allow her to see her children. On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court stayed the ruling pending their action on a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by V.L. On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court by per curiam summary disposition.
The 2016 Proposition 63, titled Firearms and Ammunition Sales, is a California ballot proposition that passed on the November 8, 2016 ballot. It requires a background check and California Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition, prohibits possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines over ten rounds, levies fines for failing to report when guns are stolen or lost, establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons, and requires California Department of Justice's participation in the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, New York, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), abbreviated NYSRPA v. NYC and also known as NYSRPA I to distinguish it from the subsequent case, was a case addressing whether the gun ownership laws of New York City, which restrict the transport of a licensed firearm out of one's home, violated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause, and the right to travel. It was the first major gun-related case that the Supreme Court had accepted for review in nearly ten years, after District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, New York City and New York state amended its laws to allay the challenged provision. In a per curiam decision in April 2020, the Supreme Court determined that the case was moot, vacating and remanding the case to lower courts to determine "whether petitioners may still add a claim for damages in this lawsuit with respect to New York City's old rule".
Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a case before the United States Supreme Court dealing with mens rea. The Court held that when a person is charged with possessing a gun while prohibited from doing so under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the prosecution must prove both that the accused knew that they possessed a gun and that they knew they held the relevant status.
Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to habeas corpus.
A binary trigger is a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to fire at an increased rate. The binary trigger works by firing one shot upon pulling the trigger and then firing a subsequent shot upon release of the trigger.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link){{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)